Vision Bank v. Algernon Land Company, LLC, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOVEMBER 18, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-13006
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-00172-N
VISION BANK,
Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Third
Party Defendant - Appellee,
versus
ALGERNON LAND COMPANY, L.L.C.,
Defendant-Third Party Defendant -
Counter Defendant - Appellee,
JAMES RAYFIELD, JR.,
Defendant - Third Party Plaintiff -
Counter Claimant - Appellant,
JULE HERBERT, JR.,
Third Party Defendant - Counter
Defendant - Appellee.

-- 1 of 4 --

________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 18, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This case was brought by Vision Bank against Algernon Land Company and
James Rayfield for breach of promissory note and guaranty. Rayfield denied
liability and counterclaimed against the Bank for fraudulent inducement and other
tortious conduct related to the execution of the note and guarantee. Rayfield also
cross-claimed against Algernon for fraud in the inducement and brought a third-
party action against Jule Herbert (Algernon’s principal) for fraud in the
inducement and legal malpractice. Following extensive discovery, the Bank1
moved the district court for summary judgment on its claim against Algernon and2
Rayfield and Rayfield’s counterclaim. The court granted the motion and gave the
The fraud-in-the-inducement cross-claim and third-party claim related to the execution1
of the note and guaranty in favor of the Vision Bank.
The case was adjudicated by a magistrate judge by consent of the parties.2
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Bank the judgment it sought. The court also entered judgment for Algernon on
Rayfield’s cross-claim against it and for Herbert on Rayfield’s third-party claim.3
Rayfield appeals the court’s judgments, raising two arguments. They are,
succinctly stated, (1) that the court “misstated and misapplied the standard for
entering summary judgment,” and (2) that “[a] genuine issue of fact does exist.
The testimony of the [Bank’s] commercial lending officer [and] various loan
documents show that Rayfield was presented false and fraudulent facts about the
purpose of the note he was guarantying.” We have carefully reviewed the record
on these points and find (1) no error in the court’s application of the summary
judgment standard and (2) no genuine issue of fact. The court’s judgments are
therefore due to be and are
The court’s statement as to why it entered judgment against Rayfield on these two3
claims is contained in the court’s dispositive order of June 17, 2011:
Rayfield has been given adequate opportunity to address the legal issues
[regarding his cross-claim and third-party claim] that the court has raised both in
its written order and during the pendency of the June 16, 2011 hearing. At the
hearing, Rayfield offered no further evidence or argument to support his claims
and stated that he was relying on his brief. Moreover, Rayfield’s counsel
conceded in open court that all of Rayfield’s claims were essentially predicated on
his fraud claims against Vision Bank and Herbert and, without a viable fraud
claim, Rayfield’s ‘entire case goes out.’ Consequently, for the reasons set forth in
the Court’s Orders of April 12, 2011 . . . and May 27, 2011 . . . as well as
Rayfield’s concessions at the hearing conducted this day, Rayfield has failed to
establish that he has asserted a viable claim against either Algernon or Herbert and
judgment is, therefore, due to be entered in their favor as to the claims asserted
against them by Rayfield.
3

-- 3 of 4 --

AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --